Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/26/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Double Patenting
3. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the claims at issue are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum,
686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321 (b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based e Terminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An e Terminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about e Terminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-l.jsp.
4. Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12,004,064. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations are transparently found in the U.S. Patent No. 12,004,064 with obvious wording variations as shown in the following table.
U.S. Patent No. 12,004,064
Application No. 18/647,799
1. A method for receiving Bluetooth packets and correcting error bits therein, performed by a processing unit, comprising: receiving a plurality of Bluetooth packets from radio frequency (RF) signal;
1. A method for receiving Bluetooth packets and correcting error bits therein, performed by a processing unit, comprising: receiving a plurality of Bluetooth packets from radio frequency (RF) signal;
verifying a unique synthesized packet with a first checksum thereof when the unique synthesized packet can be generated from the Bluetooth packets;
verifying a unique synthesized packet with a first checksum thereof when the unique synthesized packet can be generated from the Bluetooth packets;
generating a plurality of synthesized packet candidates according to at least one inconsistent bit between the Bluetooth packets and verifying each synthesized packet candidate with a second checksum thereof when the unique synthesized packet cannot be generated from the Bluetooth packets;
and transmitting a synthesized packet to a program module for an application when the unique synthesized packet or any of the synthesized packet candidates passes the verification as the synthesized packet.
and transmitting a synthesized packet to a program module for an application when the unique synthesized packet passes the verification as the synthesized packet.
U.S. Patent No. 12,004,064 Application No. 18/647,799
2-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20. 2-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20.
Consider claims 4, 11 and 17, U.S. Patent No. 12,004,064 teaches all limitations of claims 1-3, 5-10, 12-16 and 18-20 except does not explicitly teaches wherein a total number of the Bluetooth packets is greater than 2.
However, Zopf (U.S. PUB. 2021/0058190) teaches wherein a total number of the Bluetooth packets is greater than 2 (page 1 [0015] i.e., The data packets transmitted from the transmitter 101 to the receiver 102 can be Bluetooth® packets).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was made to use, wherein a total number of the Bluetooth packets is greater than 2, in order to use retransmissions to achieve a reliable communication link between a transmitter and a receiver of the wireless communications systems.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
6. Claims 1-20 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zopf (U.S. PUB. 2021/0058190) and further in view of Jamieson et al. (U.S. PAT. 8,386,892, hereinafter, “Jamieson”).
Consider claim 1, Zopf teaches a method for receiving Bluetooth packets (page 1 [0014]) and correcting error bits (page 1 [0017]) therein, performed by a processing unit, comprising: receiving a plurality of Bluetooth packets from radio frequency (RF) signal (page 1 [0014]); verifying a unique synthesized packet with a first checksum thereof when the unique synthesized packet can be generated from the Bluetooth packets (fig. 1, page 3 [0046]).
Zopf does not explicitly show that transmitting a synthesized packet to a program module for an application when the unique synthesized packet passes the verification as the synthesized packet.
In the same field of endeavor, Jamieson teaches transmitting a synthesized packet to a program module for an application when the unique synthesized packet passes the verification as the synthesized packet (col. 10, lines 3-16)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the claimed invention was made to use, transmitting a synthesized packet to a program module for an application when the unique synthesized packet passes the verification as the synthesized packet, as taught by Jamieson, in order for providing partial packet recovery for wireless networks.
Consider claim 2, Zopf further teaches activating a retransmission operation when the verification of the unique synthesized packet fails (page 1 [0012]).
Consider claim 3, Zopf further teaches determining whether the unique synthesized packet can be generated by performing a majority decision on an inconsistent bit between the Bluetooth packets (page 2 [0017]).
Consider claim 4, Zopf further teaches wherein a total number of the Bluetooth packets is greater than 2 (page 1 [0014]).
Consider claim 5, Zopf further teaches establishing a connection-oriented isochronous channel with a transmitter, wherein the connection-oriented isochronous channel uses a logical transport of a Low Energy Connected Isochronous Stream (LE-CIS), and setting a framed parameter of the LE-CIS as an unframed data packet data unit (PDU); and receiving the Bluetooth packets from the transmitter on the LE-CIS (page 1 [0015] i.e., A Bluetooth® network may be a wireless network that includes network devices which communicate using radio frequencies, protocols, standards, data formats, etc., that have been defined by the Bluetooth® Special Interest Group (Bluetooth® SIG)).
Consider claim 6, Zopf further teaches establishing a connectionless isochronous channel with a transmitter, wherein the connectionless isochronous channel uses a logical transport of a Low Energy Broadcast Isochronous Stream (LE-BIS), and setting a framing parameter of the LE-BIS as an unframed data packet data unit (PDU); and receiving the Bluetooth packets from the transmitter on the LE-BIS (page 1 [0015] i.e., A Bluetooth® network may be a wireless network that includes network devices which communicate using radio frequencies, protocols, standards, data formats, etc., that have been defined by the Bluetooth® Special Interest Group (Bluetooth® SIG)).
Consider claim 7, Zopf further teaches establishing a synchronous connection oriented (SCO)/enhanced synchronous connection oriented (eSCO) link with a transmitter; and receiving the Bluetooth packets from the transmitter on the SCO/eSCO link (page 1 [0015] i.e., A Bluetooth® network may be a wireless network that includes network devices which communicate using radio frequencies, protocols, standards, data formats, etc., that have been defined by the Bluetooth® Special Interest Group (Bluetooth® SIG)).
Consider claim 8, the subject-matter of independent claim 8 relates to a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium having stored therein program code that, when loaded and executed by a processing unit, cause the processing unit to perform a method with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 8.
Consider claim 9, the previous rejections of claim 2 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 9.
Consider claim 10, the previous rejections of claim 3 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 10.
Consider claim 11, the previous rejections of claim 4 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 11.
Consider claim 12, the previous rejections of claim 5 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 12.
Consider claim 13, the previous rejections of claim 6 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 13.
Consider claim 14, the previous rejections of claim 7 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 14.
Consider claim 15, the subject-matter of independent claim 15 relates to an apparatus with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 15.
Consider claim 16, the previous rejections of claim 3 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 16.
Consider claim 17, the previous rejections of claim 4 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 17.
Consider claim 18, the previous rejections of claim 5 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 18.
Consider claim 19, the previous rejections of claim 6 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 19.
Consider claim 20, the previous rejections of claim 7 apply mutatis mutandis to corresponding claim 20.
Conclusion
7. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649